Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

The US Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Ms. Tito said:

We tried that and got Biden. 

I find this situation hilarious.

>Anything but Trump!

Okay, here's your Biden.

>Anything but covid lockdowns!

Okay, here;s your 2022.

This situation pleases all four of the Chaos Gods, and those who think that this is bad should wait for the 2024. And be very, very afraid. Nyo ho ho.

Link to comment
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For those of you who have been following the recent decisions of the US supreme court, I thought it might be nice to have a topic where people could vent, post questions, or share concerns. I, fo

Based America Glad to see you are finally fixing your laws so they match the constitution. Maybe Biden should have thought twice about being racist to Clarence Thomas in the past.

I especially liked Reagan for selling crack in the inner cities to fund terrorism, along with everything else he did to try and end the LGBT menace before they started by no-selling aids as a fairy ta

Posted Images

13 hours ago, Ms. Tito said:

We tried that and got Biden. 

I don't see anything wrong with Biden myself, i'm proud to have voted for him and I think he's done a good job.

5 hours ago, Lisk said:

I find this situation hilarious.

>Anything but Trump!

Okay, here's your Biden.

>Anything but covid lockdowns!

Okay, here;s your 2022.

This situation pleases all four of the Chaos Gods, and those who think that this is bad should wait for the 2024. And be very, very afraid. Nyo ho ho.

You think people suffering like this is funny? Good to know.  I find your post quite disturbing frankly.

No way in hell the rethugs are going to win in 2024.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment

What do I care for their suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output.

(The strongest mids will get the reference)

Link to comment

One step forward for personal liberty by allowing citizens to protect themselves! 😄

 

One step back for personal liberty by further pushing against people having control over their own bodies and medical decisions 😧

Witnessing US higherups make decisions is like watching them play tug-of-war against their own selves.

Thankfully I have had enough experience with media to know that it probably won't be nearly as bad as fear-mongering would have people think, after all there's only so much politicians can do when the population is against them.

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

I don't see anything wrong with Biden myself, i'm proud to have voted for him and I think he's done a good job.

You think people suffering like this is funny? Good to know.  I find your post quite disturbing frankly.

No way in hell the rethugs are going to win in 2024.

I don't even think America is going to survive past 2024. 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Ms. Tito said:

I don't even think America is going to survive past 2024. 

I disagree, i'm not quite ready to give up on America just yet. The way I see it if the Ukranians still have the courage to stay and fight after everything they've endured at the hands of Russia, then i've got no excuse for not staying and fighting myself.

1 hour ago, Tentacool said:

One step forward for personal liberty by allowing citizens to protect themselves! 😄

 

One step back for personal liberty by further pushing against people having control over their own bodies and medical decisions 😧

Witnessing US higherups make decisions is like watching them play tug-of-war against their own selves.

Thankfully I have had enough experience with media to know that it probably won't be nearly as bad as fear-mongering would have people think, after all there's only so much politicians can do when the population is against them.

 

Citizens were always allowed to protect themselves though, the idea that they weren't before this SCOTUS decision is just plain untrue. Also it's not fearmongering to say that the repeal of Roe will have major consequences, we're already seeing them as a 10-year old girl was forced to travel to Indiana to get an abortion and many states have no exceptions for rape or incest.

Yes anti-abortion stuff is largely unpopular, but unfortunately in many states the GOP has stacked the courts in a way where they can force their unpopular views onto everyone else(see Florida's completely bogus "Don't Say Gay" law) and with all of their gerrymandering voting them all out is going to be very difficult.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
5 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

Citizens were always allowed to protect themselves though, the idea that they weren't before this SCOTUS decision is just plain untrue.


Not federally, in a lot of states you needed to prove to the mayor that you had a "special need" to carry (and self defsense was seen as an illegitimate reason).

That's just politician-speak for: "Only people we like can protect themselves"

So I'm glad that's no longer the case on a federal level.

Just wish they'd have some logical consistency and apply that to basic rights across the board! Wishful thinking ig.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

anti-abortion stuff is largely unpopular

This isn't completely true - completely banning abortion generally polls with pretty low support, but having more restriction on abortion than what was allowed by Roe v Wade & Casey tend to poll with majority support. Also, support for restrictions varies greatly by age, ethnicity, politics, religion, and location - and probably surprising for some, sex is not a strong predictor of support or opposition to abortion or abortion restrictions.

Some groups that tended to vote Democrat, like first-generation Hispanics (i.e. born abroad), are among the most anti-abortion subgroups in the US, so it will also be interesting to see if politics shift at all due to this.

Edited by StNick (see edit history)
Link to comment
4 hours ago, StNick said:

This isn't completely true - completely banning abortion generally polls with pretty low support, but having more restriction on abortion than what was allowed by Roe v Wade & Casey tend to poll with majority support. Also, support for restrictions varies greatly by age, ethnicity, politics, religion, and location - and probably surprising for some, sex is not a strong predictor of support or opposition to abortion or abortion restrictions.

Some groups that tended to vote Democrat, like first-generation Hispanics (i.e. born abroad), are among the most anti-abortion subgroups in the US, so it will also be interesting to see if politics shift at all due to this.

Definitely going to need some citations and proof on that one, because i've never heard anything like that.

 

4 hours ago, Tentacool said:


Not federally, in a lot of states you needed to prove to the mayor that you had a "special need" to carry (and self defsense was seen as an illegitimate reason).

That's just politician-speak for: "Only people we like can protect themselves"

So I'm glad that's no longer the case on a federal level.

Just wish they'd have some logical consistency and apply that to basic rights across the board! Wishful thinking ig.

Not true, the New York law was meant to stop actual felons and otherwise dangerous individuals(I.E. domestic abusers) from getting their hands on firearms, now New York is much less safe now that anyone no matter how unqualified can own a gun, I forsee NYC going back to the dark times of the 80s when crime was through the roof.

My position on guns is best summed up from this quote from Paul Kersey in Death Wish 3: "Guns have their uses, it's idiots with guns that worry me"

Link to comment
5 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

Not true, the New York law was meant to stop actual felons and otherwise dangerous individuals(I.E. domestic abusers) from getting their hands on firearms, now New York is much less safe now that anyone no matter how unqualified can own a gun, I forsee NYC going back to the dark times of the 80s when crime was through the roof.

My position on guns is best summed up from this quote from Paul Kersey in Death Wish 3: "Guns have their uses, it's idiots with guns that worry me"

Felons are already barred from owning firearms, what are you talking about?

And no one can just go in and buy something, all gun sales already require a federal background check, if you've seen someone buy a gun without performing it, either they didn't buy it and it's actually a family heirloom, or the person selling it was acting illegally.

Also, no offense but if you truly think legal firearm availability for citizens is somehow gonna cause more crime to happen, you might be really out of touch on this subject.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tentacool said:

Felons are already barred from owning firearms, what are you talking about?

And no one can just go in and buy something, all gun sales already require a federal background check, if you've seen someone buy a gun without performing it, either they didn't buy it and it's actually a family heirloom, or the person selling it was acting illegally.

Also, no offense but if you truly think legal firearm availability for citizens is somehow gonna cause more crime to happen, you might be really out of touch on this subject.

 

You are the one who is out of touch if you can't see the major problems this ruling will cause, no offense. It will undoubtedly cause more crime to happen, I don't know how that's even up for debate.  We can expect to see more mass shootings like the one in Buffalo happen as a result.

It's not just me saying that either, it's the cops as well.

 https://nypost.com/2022/06/26/nypd-official-scotus-gun-ruling-could-turn-ny-into-wild-east/

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
1 hour ago, LifeIsStrange said:

You are the one who is out of touch if you can't see the major problems this ruling will cause, no offense. It will undoubtedly cause more crime to happen, I don't know how that's even up for debate.  We can expect to see more mass shootings like the one in Buffalo happen as a result.

It's not just me saying that either, it's the cops as well.

 https://nypost.com/2022/06/26/nypd-official-scotus-gun-ruling-could-turn-ny-into-wild-east/

Now hold on. Lets think for a minute here... Lets say your worst enemy was the judge you'd have to appeal to in order to show your "proper cause" for owning a firearm... Couldn't he then prevent you from being able to own a gun? And then if he disliked you enough, couldn't he allow one of his friends to get a gun and then get into a "fight" with you where you then got shot?

Also, I'd think this is a great thing for minorities!!! They are now able to own a gun without having to prove that they need one. Whereas before racist judges would be able to prevent them from owning firearms, they are now able to own them without any interference!

And I mean, lets be honest here. The criminals who got guns were never going to a judge and providing them with a "proper cause" to be able to own a gun. They'd steal it, or get it from a friend, or get it some other illegal means. 

Edited by Subaru (see edit history)
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tentacool said:

Felons are already barred from owning firearms, what are you talking about?

And no one can just go in and buy something, all gun sales already require a federal background check, if you've seen someone buy a gun without performing it, either they didn't buy it and it's actually a family heirloom, or the person selling it was acting illegally.

Also, no offense but if you truly think legal firearm availability for citizens is somehow gonna cause more crime to happen, you might be really out of touch on this subject.

 

I was about to say the following:  In every commercial business purchase (like at a gun store, pawn shop, gun show booth, etc), of a "firearm", the purchaser has to complete a form 4473. The FFL (Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer) then runs that person through the NICS system. The NICS system checks to see if the 4473 applicant is a "prohibited person" under federal law from purchasing or possessing a "firearm".  If the applicant comes back clean, the sale is finalized.  If not, the applicant is prosecuted on the FEDERAL LEVEL for ATTEMPTING to purchase a "firearm" illegally. This includes a domestic abuser whose crime was a misdemeanor but punishable by up to 1 year in jail.

 

Literally, absolutely NOTHING has changed or been made less safe.  All gun dealers who sell guns for profit as a business have had to complete form 4473 since the Gun Control Act of 1968.  NICS has been up and running since The Brady Gun Act of 1993 and has been pretty much instant since 1998 with the invention of the internet access to it through the FBI and BATFe.

 

There is no such thing as the perennial argument of "the gun show loophole" because if they're operating as a business at a booth, they must be FFL holders. Federally, there is no need to involve an FFL if a person inherits a "firearm" in the same State, but does if the "firearm heir" lives across a State line.  An FFL will charge on average $20.00 per "firearm" to do a 4473 and run a NICS check on the heir.

 

The GCA 1968 defines what a "firearm" is and is not. A cap & ball "gun" mfg before 1904 or REPRODUCTION THEREOF is a "collectable gun" and NOT a firearm, and anyone can buy one of those online or at many hobby stores without any FFL involvement whatsoever.

 

As far as NY States Concealed Carry Law is concerned, I don't know how those folks act up in NYC, but here in Texas, CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders literally have a lower incidence of both felony ANDQ misdemeanor convictions than Texas Certified Peace Officers do.  Now either we got some really good CHL holders or some really bad cops...bahahaha!!! Now if the folks in NYC want to tell a waitress who gets off work at 3am that she isn't as in need as say, Sean Hannity to a tool to defend herself, then the citizens/voters of NYC should certainly have the right to do so...but she should consider moving to Texas where we have constitutional open carry and anyone who meets the above NICS background checks standards to own a "firearm" is allowed to strap it on their hip for the world to see.  I personally do not, because I feel it makes me more of a target for a nut job out in public.

 

 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Subaru said:

It's good for women too, I've heard stories of women not being able to get guns to protect themselves from stalkers, and what not due to sexist judges. Now that will no longer be an issue.

I suppose so, I still can't help but be concerned about the negative side effects though.  
 

 

11 minutes ago, leepee43 said:

I was about to say the following:  In every commercial business purchase (like at a gun store, pawn shop, gun show booth, etc), of a "firearm", the purchaser has to complete a form 4473. The FFL (Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer) then runs that person through the NICS system. The NICS system checks to see if the 4473 applicant is a "prohibited person" under federal law from purchasing or possessing a "firearm".  If the applicant comes back clean, the sale is finalized.  If not, the applicant is prosecuted on the FEDERAL LEVEL for ATTEMPTING to purchase a "firearm" illegally. This includes a domestic abuser whose crime was a misdemeanor but punishable by up to 1 year in jail.

 

Literally, absolutely NOTHING has changed or been made less safe.  All gun dealers who sell guns for profit as a business have had to complete form 4473 since the Gun Control Act of 1968.  NICS has been up and running since The Brady Gun Act of 1993 and has been pretty much instant since 1998 with the invention of the internet access to it through the FBI and BATFe.

 

There is no such thing as the perennial argument of "the gun show loophole" because if they're operating as a business at a booth, they must be FFL holders. Federally, there is no need to involve an FFL if a person inherits a "firearm" in the same State, but does if the "firearm heir" lives across a State line.  An FFL will charge on average $20.00 per "firearm" to do a 4473 and run a NICS check on the heir.

 

The GCA 1968 defines what a "firearm" is and is not. A cap & ball "gun" mfg before 1904 or REPRODUCTION THEREOF is a "collectable gun" and NOT a firearm, and anyone can buy one of those online or at many hobby stores without any FFL involvement whatsoever.

 

As far as NY States Concealed Carry Law is concerned, I don't know how those folks act up in NYC, but here in Texas, CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders literally have a lower incidence of both felony ANDQ misdemeanor convictions than Texas Certified Peace Officers do.  Now either we got some really good CHL holders or some really bad cops...bahahaha!!! Now if the folks in NYC want to tell a waitress who gets off work at 3am that she isn't as in need as say, Sean Hannity to a tool to defend herself, then the citizens/voters of NYC should certainly have the right to do so...but she should consider moving to Texas where we have constitutional open carry and anyone who meets the above NICS background checks standards to own a "firearm" is allowed to strap it on their hip for the world to see.  I personally do not, because I feel it makes me more of a target for a nut job out in public.

 

 

 

The gun-show loophole is a real thing though, that's how the Columbine killers got their weapons-a female friend of theirs purchased them from a gun-show.



 

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, LifeIsStrange said:

I suppose so, I still can't help but be concerned about the negative side effects though.  
 

 

The gun-show loophole is a real thing though, that's how the Columbine killers got their weapons-a female friend of theirs purchased them from a gun-show.



 

You just described what's called a "Straw Purchase".  The GCA 1968 defines a straw purchase of a firearm as a straw buyer being one who buys a firearm for a prohibited possesser or one who is underage.  The girlfriend bought some of the firearms from an unlicensed seller at a gun show and another firearm from an individual who knew that kliebold and Harris were too young to purchase a firearm.  I don't know what they did to her, but she's broke federal law (GCA 1968) by knowingly being a straw purchaser for an underage person or otherwise prohibited person.  Now, I haven't been to all gun shows everywhere, but in the past 20 years (since Columbine) I've never seen a Non-FFL individual operating a booth...it might have had something to do with exactly Columbine in that event promoters wouldn't want the legal liability involved with allowing a random dude to rent a booth and "sell as an individual" there.  This is not to say that an individual cannot sell his firearm to anyone as long as it is IN-STATE. But, it's a HUGE Federal fine and prison time to sell to a known prohibited person or buy for the same 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, LifeIsStrange said:

Right away:

 

No citations given, very selective statistics (including suicides, also with no sample size or citation)

And furthermore a lot of the "loopholes" this website cites are already addressed on a state level - for obvious reasons - AND has NOTHING to do with the Federal Carry.

 

Life, I appreciate you as a content creator, but I think it's safe to say you've been misinformed, furthermore this has been a massive change in goalposts.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Tentacool said:

Right away:

 

No citations given, very selective statistics (including suicides, also with no sample size or citation)

And furthermore a lot of the "loopholes" this website cites are already addressed on a state level - for obvious reasons - AND has NOTHING to do with the Federal Carry.

 

Life, I appreciate you as a content creator, but I think it's safe to say you've been misinformed, furthermore this has been a massive change in goalposts.

No it's safe to say it's you who has been misinformed here if you seriously don't see ANY potential downsides at all to this SCOTUS decision.

Don't see how any goalposts have been changed really.

Look I don't want to be right about this SCOTUS decision having negative side effects, but after how bad this year has been for mass-shootings I can't help but be cynical about it.

Anyway I think i've discussed this decision enough at this point so i'm just going to leave it here as I don't see either one of us budging on this issue anytime soon. 

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Tentacool said:

But that means that female friend is the one who had the clean name, she made the purchase and then let somebody else take her gun, which is illegal.

The penalty under GCA 1968 is a $1,000,000.00 fine AND up to 120 months in Federal prison.  Don't be making straw purchases for prohibited persons....they can look tack on 1 count of "misprison of a felony" which is lawyerspeak for "you lied on a form to get something you count have if you'd have told the truth".

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...